Why Britain's Deradicalization Programs Are Failing

The two effective initiatives were, "one defying political correctness and tackling difficult issues head-on and the other directly addressing extremism in religious [Islamic] texts." — The Times.

Unwittingly, Home Secretary Sajid Javid showed just why the deradicalization programs he is defending do not work. He said nothing about the boy's family's religious faith, radical Islam or the narrative of hate and intolerance founded on a "radical" interpretation of the Quran and Sunna to which the boy may well have been exposed at home, at the mosque and over the internet.

The trouble with Javid's tribute to those Muslims who "stand up against all forms of extremism" is that bigotry and bloodlust are not merely figments of Islamist extremists' minds. They stem from an authentic interpretation of Quranic verses and hadiths, which currently dominates the Muslim world.

The vast majority of deradicalization programs in the UK are at best ineffective and at worst counter-productive, according to a recent study by the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT, also known as the "nudge unit"), a social purpose company partially owned by the UK government, but that works in partnership with the Cabinet Office.

As the Times reported recently, BIT examined 33 deradicalization programs across Britain, in schools, youth centers, sports clubs and English-language classes. Most of these are part of Prevent -- a strategy presented in 2011 to the UK Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department -- designed to keep vulnerable citizens from becoming terrorists or supporting any form of violent extremism inspired by radical Islamist or right-wing ideologies. BIT found that only two of the programs have been successful.

The main reason for the failure of the other 31 programs, according to the Times' report on the study, is:

"...that facilitators were uncomfortable dealing with sensitive topics and would often refuse to engage if they were brought up. BIT found that teachers in particular were afraid to bring up matters of race and religion with their students without appearing discriminatory, often causing them to refuse to talk about these topics entirely."

The two effective initiatives, according to the Times, were "one defying political correctness and tackling difficult issues head-on and the other directly addressing extremism in religious [Islamic] texts."

In Britain, the majority (82%) of the 228 people in custody for terrorism-related offenses espouse Islamist extremism. In August 2017, the EU's counter-terrorism coordinator, Gilles de Kerchove, said that the UK has more radicalized Muslims than any other European country. He added that Britain "has identified 20,000 to 35,000 radicals. Of these, 3,000 are worrying for MI5, and of those 500 are under constant and special attention."

In a speech in London on June 4, Britain's recently appointed Home Secretary, Sajid Javid MP, said that the UK's

"... biggest threat [today] is from Islamist terrorism – including Al Qa'ida, but particularly from Daesh.

"While the so-called caliphate is a thing of the past, Daesh continues to plan and inspire attacks both here and abroad as well as recruiting British citizens to fight.

"Over the past 5 years, our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have foiled as many as 25 Islamist-linked plots."

...

"But the threat doesn't only come from Daesh.

"Extreme right-wing terrorism is also an increasing threat... Daesh and the extreme right wing are more similar than they might like to think.

"They both exploit grievances, distort the truth, and undermine the values that hold us together.

"And they don't hesitate to learn lessons from each other."

...

"The Prevent strategy will remain a vital part of our counter-terrorism work.

"Yes, I recognise the criticisms, but I absolutely support it.

"Misapprehensions around Prevent are often based on distortions.

"They are based on a lack of understanding about the grassroots work that is involved, and the efforts by civil society groups and public-sector workers to protect vulnerable people.

"We have a moral and social obligation to safeguard vulnerable people from the twisted propaganda of those seeking to radicalise them.

"And Prevent is about doing just that."

To illustrate the benefits of Prevent programs, Javid told the story of a 13-year-old boy:

"He witnessed domestic abuse at home and suffered from racist bullying at school. He started to watch violent propaganda online and to show an interest in fighting for Daesh. But he was given the mentoring and support that he needed to stop him from going down that wrong path. Now his mum says, and I quote, 'he's no longer on the path to radicalisation and all he wants to be is a car salesman.'"

Unwittingly, by recounting this tale, Javid showed just why the deradicalization programs he is defending do not work. He reduced the radicalization of a Muslim teenager to domestic abuse, racist bullying at school and online violent propaganda. He said nothing about the boy's family's religious faith, radical Islam or the narrative of hate and intolerance founded on a "radical" interpretation of the Quran and Sunna to which the boy may well have been exposed at home, at the mosque and over the internet. Instead, Javid provided a politically correct narrative to back up his assertion that Prevent is not only a success, but part of the "new counter-terrorism strategy" he was unveiling.

Javid then devoted a whole section of his speech to his fellow Muslims in Britain:

"After any [terrorist] attack, a lot of well-meaning people will line up to say it has nothing to do with Islam. That the perpetrators are not true Muslims. I understand this reaction. I know they are not true Muslims. But there's no avoiding the fact that these people they self-identify as Muslims.

"Let me be very clear. Muslims are in no way responsible for the acts of a tiny minority who twist their faith. And I know that there is no such thing as a single, homogenous Muslim community. Muslims live and thrive in all walks of British life and society.

"Globally, Muslims are by far the biggest victims of Islamist terrorism. And Muslims are fighting and dying on the frontline of the battle against terrorism every day.

"It would be absurd to say that the actions of a tiny handful in any way represent a peaceful, wonderful religion shared by a billion people worldwide.

"That's exactly why, although we all share the responsibility for tackling terrorism, there's a unique role for Muslims to play in countering this threat.

"British Muslims up and down the country are leading the fight against Islamist extremists by throwing them out of their mosques and by countering poison online and on the streets. It is incredibly powerful when a young Muslim man turns their back on the preachers of hate, and say: 'Your bigotry and bloodlust have no place in the modern world.'

"I want to say to all those who stand up against all forms of extremism that this government stands with you..."

The trouble with Javid's tribute to those Muslims who "stand up against all forms of extremism" is that bigotry and bloodlust are not merely figments of Islamist extremists' minds that lead to their violent conduct. They stem from an authentic interpretation of Quranic verses and hadiths, which -- according to Londonistan author Melanie Phillips -- "although millions of Muslims don't subscribe to it, currently dominates the Islamic world." Sadly, worldwide, Muslims, too, are often victims of Muslim violence.

For deradicalization programs -- and counter-terrorism initiatives -- to work, they must first defy political correctness, tackle the root causes of Islamist extremism and address all related sensitive issues, including those which appear in Islamic texts. British Muslims should not only participate in this endeavor, but be on the front lines, monitoring early signs of radicalization and ceasing to show sympathy for or to rationalize violence.

Comment on this item

38 Reader Comments

Peter Terry • Jul 1, 2018 at 12:21

The Muslims who stand against what is called radicalism but which is actually traditional Islam, are putting themselves in harm's way, much more so than any non-Muslims who express their opinions on the subject. Does the Home Secretary believe the lives and well-being of these "moderate Muslims" to be a fitting sacrifice for him being able to tout progress to the press? This is hypocrisy and idiocy combined. The UK needs to elect leadership that will require all of its citizens to demonstrate their loyalty to the established way of life and code of law in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Anyone who is unwilling to do so should be assisted in finding another home, one that is compatible with their beliefs. There are millions of Muslims who are able to sincerely demonstrate such loyalty, and only a few thousand who will not do so. They are the ones who need to go, not everybody who self-identifies as Muslim. Let's learn a thing or two from the morally repugnant way in which Europeans mishandled Jews, for centuries. It would be just as morally repugnant to mishandle Muslims today and tomorrow.

Reply->

george • Jul 1, 2018 at 12:03

Repeatedly leaders in the Muslim community have stated there is no such thing as radical Islam; there is only Islam. I'm not sure I believe any of Javid's rhetoric.

Reply->

Rames Paulus • Jul 1, 2018 at 11:20

Round and round we go...

Reply->

Carl B • Jul 1, 2018 at 11:16

Said Javid must either be totally ignorant about the doctrine of Islam or wilfully deceive his audience which would be, by the way, entirely in line with the doctrine of Islam as long as it advances Islam and its proliferation among the Kaffir (non believer) civilization.

Let's touch just three of the most incorrect statements.

'Not true Muslims' - according to the doctrine of Islam, the highest accomplishment is to engage in violent Jihad and get martyred, or to finance such Jihadi.

So who again are those 'true Muslims'?

'And I know that there is no such thing as a single, homogenous Muslim community.'

Again false - according to the doctrine of Islam, a Muslim is not an individual, but a part of the 'Ummah' the brotherhood of Muslims. He is a 'slave to Allah' as best illustrated in the doctrine of 'Al Wara wal Bara'. A Muslim is to love what Allah loves, and hate what Allah hates (Allah hates the Kafir and 'hypocrites')

"Globally, Muslims are by far the biggest victims of Islamist terrorism"

Of course, first of all it's not 'Islamist terrorism' but violent Jihad (Jihad bis saif - 'Jihad by the sword'). According to the doctrine of Islam, jihad is mandated not only against the Kafir, but also against the 'hypocrites'.

Now who are these 'hypocrites' it's those who claim to be Muslims, but who are not faithful to the doctrine of Islam.

This is Jihad of purification - and also the doctrinal reason for Jihad against Shia, Sufi, Ahmaddya Muslims, or any Muslim not living in accordance with the doctrine of Islam.

Anytime someone spouts such ignorance about Islam they should be called out for it.

Reply->

Hamish MacDonald • Jul 1, 2018 at 10:02

Muslim cohesiveness is based on harsh penalties, not on love nor on peace. Islam is not a religion of peace.
Britain is a pawn for a larger plot, of which its migrants are but a part.Britain's cohesiveness is based on a Judeo-Christian culture and on the English language.Britain must attend to the issue, desperate as Britain may be it has no option but to confront this fifth column in its midst, which is of criminal intent, and be as strict with every intrusion into this culture as it is with ensuring its own citizens are as law abiding.

Reply->

Marek Eyal • Jul 1, 2018 at 05:19

The main obstacle of British deradicalization battle is Home Secretary himself.

To support this claim it is enough to read a fragment of his speech cited in the article below: "I know they are not true Muslims". Which is clearly not based on facts, since...

1. How he knows it? Knows personally every one of them? and...2. The crucial query "Who is true Muslim" , is not addressed beforehand by him.

In my opinion deradicalization of UK should start from clear definitions of 2. "Who is Muslim", Who is not and Muslim" and "Who is true Muslim", by an independent commission and approved by referendum.

Then those definitions should be confronted with the opinions of Home Secretary. In the case of contradictions, Home Secretary should be replaced by another politician ,accepting these definitions.

Then the Britons may start to fight the deradicalization.

Reply->

David • Jul 1, 2018 at 04:56

As a general rule a very high percentage of Western non muslims bend over backwards to demonstrate that they oppose religious and racial bigotry in words and in action. Furthermore they modify their behaviour to an abnormal and pathological degree so that there is not even the slightest hint (whether factual or false, logical or otherwise) that could justify the accusation of racial or religious bigotry.

For example police and social workers refusing to act for several years while knowing of the sexual abuse by predominantlty muslim pakistanis of approximately 1400 young white girls in Rotherham.

For example refusal to criticise Koran for declaring that apostates and gays should be murdered

However the overwhelming need to demonstrate the absence of racial and religious bigotry extends to approving nearly all behaviour by Muslims and any criticism as islamophobic,

The exception is that criticism of nearly all behaviour by Jews is becoming an increaingly acceptable form of racist and religious bigotry even if is clearly antisemitic in nature.

Reply->

ABDELKADER HAMDAOUI • Jul 1, 2018 at 03:18

We have to be 'correct' not just hypocritically correct. We must no longer beat around the bush, we have to carry out deislamification just as we carried out denazification; Islamism like Nazism and Fascism is a totalitarian dogma. It has totally thought controlled and destroyed the Arabs and through them the people of the Middle East, North Africa and beyond. Islamic bigotry is deep rooted dyed-in-the-wool, congenital in their upbringing, NOT RADICALISED.

Reply->

Erwin Hodel • Jul 1, 2018 at 00:35

Once again, I refer to last year's Gatestone article "Why There Is No Peace in the Middle East" by Canadian anthropologist Philip Carl Salzman (see archive). The whole discussion about the radical side of Islam does not lead anywhere if the background of Islamic culture is not taken into account. Unlike most other cultures, the Arab world is still largely based on tribal societies. To be precise, the doctrine of Muhammad is only a veil around the underlying tribal culture. This is one of the reasons why these deradicalisation programs do not work. This would require deep intervention in the cultural imprint of the individual. This, in turn, is almost impossible because most people would feel that this was a loss of their identity. Another aspect that goes beyond this consideration is that there are more questions than answers to the fact that since the 14th century, Islamic culture has not developed any further.

Reply->

Keith Wilson • Jul 1, 2018 at 00:04

Islam lures adherents with the promises of rewards in the afterlife for jihad. This is itself taqiyya. Western governments with secularist beliefs do not believe there is an afterlife, so neither believe in ultimate justice and taqiyya of both world views whether with violence or not are equally morally meaningless.

Reply->

UNCLE VLADDI • Jun 30, 2018 at 22:49

Here's the real "difference" between "radical" and "moderate" muslims:

"Radical" muslims want to murder us for not being muslims."Moderate" muslims want "radical" muslims to murder us for not being muslims.

And why is this? Simple!

In Judeo-Christian lore, if one feels depressed and like committing suicide (much less by, or when also

trying to murder others) one learns that if one decides to do so, one is destined for HELL.

But the criminal Qur'an tells it's Submissive "muslim" dupes that, if and when they're feeling down, they

can instantly get to PARADISE itself BY randomly murdering others!

So it's obviously islam itself which causes any and all "radicalization!"

(Official 'Abrogation' of all the semi-peaceful verses in the Qur'an)!

In handy web-based .PDF format!

Bottom line: there are no "moderate" muslims, simply because there is no "moderate" islam!

So, why are "our leaders" and their pet enemedia lying to us all the time about this?!

Here's what's really going on:

Although it's true that not all Germans were Nazis, not all Italians are Mafiosis, not all whites are Hell's Angels, and not all Arabs are muslims - it IS nevertheless true that all Nazis WERE nazis, all Mafiosis ARE Mafiosis, all Hell's Angels ARE Hell's Angels, and ALL MUSLIMS ARE MUSLIMS!

The politically correct pretence du jour is to pretend that 'NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE (really) MUSLIMS!'

And in order to sell that lie to people, some mythical and entirely unsupported sub-categories of "muslims" had to be invented and screamed at us, over and over again.

And "our leaders" are in the habit of beating us over the head with our own guilt all the time, BECAUSE It is the not-so-secret duty of the authorities and enemedia to scold us for being hateful racist bigots all the time, so their slander can keep us off-balance and on the defensive, thus not giving us enough time to see what they're really all up to – which is selling us all out for only their own personal gains, by selling our countries off to our enemies, by buying their money, running their tabs in our names.

Reply->

Dajjal UNCLE VLADDI • Jul 4, 2018 at 05:07

Radicalism my foot! They are not radicals & Moderates, Unk, they are Believers & hypocrites, as you well know.

4.89 tells about the hypocrites. Also 9.124...129. 9.111 & 49.15 tell about the believers. If you know the code, so does 8.1...5.

What is Islam? What did Moe do? He is the role model and exemplar 33.21. In Ibn Sa'd, search for "missives" and read first the "Letter To The Rulers Of Ayla" In Guillaume's "The Life Of Muhammad, read the table of contents. Razia,ghazwat, murder, conquest, expedition: that's Islam!

Reply->

UNCLE VLADDI • Jun 30, 2018 at 22:46

The word "radical" literally means "goes to the root of." Violence is intrinsic to islam, not incidental tangential or peripheral to it (not a "radical" departure)!

Here's the "psychology" of "radicalization:"

The bottom line of sharia is that Islam's Qur'an only lists and sums up all the bad criminal acts everyone might become tempted into committing in the course of their lives anyway, and gives them the endorsement of "God" himself! So everyone already prone, in at least some situational circumstances in their lives, to indulge their criminal desires and turn them into criminal actions, will eventually embrace islam (in prison, if not before)!

Beyond this, "muslims" are also trained from birth to lie to all others, and to personally kill small animals in their Eid rituals, while being taught they are the best of people, and all infidel others are only worthy of being murdered and sent to Hell - by them, personally, not by "god."

And in Judeo-Christianity, when one is depressed and considers suicide, (much less considering suicide after or by committing mass murder) one is told one is destined for HELL.

While in islam, on the contrary, when one is depressed and considering suicide, one is told that all one has to do to guarantee one's instant ascent to HEAVEN itself, (while also guaranteeing a choice spot there for 72 of one's chosen family members and closest friends) is to at least TRY to murder as many (even random) infidels as one can, "for allah!"

Reply->

Dajjal UNCLE VLADDI • Jul 4, 2018 at 05:19

Two bones of contention, Unk. It's fought until he was killed", not suicide! Suicide: the intention to kill oneself, is haram!!! Fighting to the death is meritorious. Search for "Jihad and intentions" if memory serves, it is a small pdf. Search Sahih Bukhari for intentions. Start with 4.52.311 and search again in book 53.

Naskh is a matter of sequence. But the Koran is not in chronological sequence. You need to find a good sequence of revelation table. At-taubah contains the "great abrogator", ayat al-saif.

Reply->

Richard from NZ • Jun 30, 2018 at 19:44

For the purpose of guiding Muslims, could the Home Office please draw up a (long) list of the Quranic verses that encourage violence against unbelievers, which the Home Office thinks should be ignored by Muslims?

Reply->

Scott Bolland • Jun 30, 2018 at 16:27

How can an individual (the author of this article included) be Muslim ("one who SUBMITS" to institution the stated aims of Islam) and then blithely "not subscribe" to it ?

Reply->

JANICE DOUGHERTY • Jun 30, 2018 at 15:39

The "Prevent" program is a thinly veiled lip service to what their actual goal is to lull the naive native Brits into a false sense of minor comfort while they are being betrayed on every level and their money merely filtered back into the hijjrah community. The consummate cowardice of PM May and her crew is more astonishing at every telling.

Reply->

Peter Buckley • Jun 30, 2018 at 13:48

So-called de-radicalization" programmes are based on the false premise that the true teachings of Islam are peaceful, and so all that needs to be done is show "extremists" how they're misunderstanding the Qur'an and overlooking its teachings of peace, and all will be well. But since the Qur'an and Sunnah are full of commands to make war against and subjugate unbelievers, the idea that jihadis can be "deradicalized" by reference to them is just a myth told to Infidel authorities to lull them into complacency.

Ironically, it is invariably simple, normal human interaction that offers the best solution:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS7FIYvZzbc&t=25s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6az_5mGa3QA

The answer is actually quite simple: If muslims want programmes like Prevent to continue, those muslims who run the programmes, must agree to ex-muslims becoming involved and speaking to these delusionals. The problem will disappear within a generation or so.

Reply->

Bisley • Jun 30, 2018 at 13:11

The very idea of "deradicalizing" violent Islamists is ludicrous in itself. The percentage of people who believe in something strongly enough to kill for it, who can be persuaded to turn against it, is so small as to make any attempt at it worthless. When you add to that the inability of the people trying to do the persuading to mention Islam (whose more violent parts are what they are supposedly trying to persuade against), and the fact that trying to convince most people that their basic system of belief is wrong tends to make them defend it all the more, the whole thing becomes a meaningless farce.

This all stems from the mistaken idea that nearly everything can be resolved by negotiation, counseling, or persuasion of some sort -- this is not the case. For any sort of negotiation, persuasion, etc. to be of any value, the parties involved must have already made up their minds as to what they're trying to accomplish, and be seeking the same general outcome. An Islamic terrorist can only be deradicalized if he's already lost faith in what he was doing, which means that he's deradicalized himself, and that the counseling is unnecessary other than (maybe) to give him support for the decision he's already made.

Deradicalization programs are a total waste of time and money. Taxpayers are forced to pay people to do a job that can't be done (certainly not to a degree that could justify its cost, or under the constraints of political correctness), and more unnecessary government bureaucrats to oversee and manage the programs. Unless they attack Islam itself (whose basic tenets, if accepted literally, promote terrorism), try to suppress it, or start wholesale deportation of Muslims, they're wasting their time. The solution for Muslim terrorists is not to try to change their minds, but to deal with them in the proper manner for terrorists -- if they are non-citizens, deport them (and if naturalized citizens, revoke their citizenship and deport them), if they commit violent acts, hang them. The present British political system is the real problem. The policies of the leaderships of both major parties have created the circumstances that exist today, and none of them would even consider the sort of actions necessary to reverse the damage they've done (and continue to do) to the country.

Reply->

Trish Holbrook Bisley • Jul 1, 2018 at 12:11

The most sensible comment I have ever read. Good to know there is someone with a brain out there in these dark days!

Reply->

Mark Matthias • Jun 30, 2018 at 12:48

"The trouble with Javid's tribute to those Muslims who "stand up against all forms of extremism" is that bigotry and bloodlust are not merely figments of Islamist extremists' minds. They stem from an authentic interpretation of Quranic verses and hadiths, which currently dominates the Muslim world."

It's as simple as that -- how could something so straightforward be so difficult to understand? But it's not at all difficult, it's about fear...the same tactic Muhammad used when people refused to acknowledge him as "the Last Prophet".

This reality makes Islamic ideology very suspect because they seem to know the veracity does not stand on its own -- after all, Muhammad was not terribly successful evangelizing Islam -- he became exceedingly successful when he began to conquer by war. Today it's the same modus operandi in Islam.

That's an argument that's sure to receive attention. The same Islamic protocol has the world on its knees. Naturally, the apparent submission is seen as an ideological victory, though it's not Islam in and of itself that is responsible for its success.

However, honestly, every human being has a conscience which can be hardened -- blocking reason, or it can be sensitized. It's interesting that Muhammad at first ran from the "Gabriel" in his vision thinking it was a demon.

Whatever the case may be, he gave in...

Reply->

tedh754 • Jun 30, 2018 at 12:33

Islam's founder was violent. Therefore he wasn't a true Muslim? Who knew?

Reply->

Ron • Jun 30, 2018 at 12:15

Research by anthropologist Scott Atran of the University of Oxford's Centre for Resolution of Intractable Conflicts may explain why attempts at deradicalizing Islamic terrorists have met with such little success. Professor Atran found that a jihadist combines his personal identity with that of the terrorist group and dedicates his life to following a set of "sacred values". These are values that the group member believes are immutable and cannot be compromised for personal gain. Such strongly held radicalized beliefs present a daunting challenge to anyone attempting to replace them with a set of beliefs that are compatible with the values of western democratic societies..I compare the difficulty of deradicalizing an Islamic terrorist to that of curing a patient with an advanced case of rabies. It may not be impossible but it is most likely doomed to failure.

Reply->

Mike • Jun 30, 2018 at 10:38

Just change the word Islamist with Islam then the whole answer is there.

Reply->

af • Jun 30, 2018 at 10:27

All the more reason not to let them in. Isn't it interesting that there NO de-radicalization programs for Christians, Jews, Hindus, or any other religion?!!

Reply->

Arnie • Jun 30, 2018 at 10:10

I have to laugh at these Brits and all the other countries that are having problems integrating their Islamic populations. The British and the other countries in the meantime are being mean-spirited to their Jewish populations even though the Jews who also arrived went on to integrate into their host countries and made them richer economically as well as culturally.

Reply->

Jeff Page Arnie • Jun 30, 2018 at 10:35

I take exception to your remark Arnie. I like a great many Brits fully support the Jewish communities all over the country. We know full well the contribution they make to society and we value them greatly. The rise of anti-semitism, is directly connected to the rise in numbers of Muslims, and the way our government fails to clamp down on them when they express hatred towards Jews. The public has taken notice of how the government is acting and the way they protect Muslims at the expense of others. We will stand with our Jewish communities and against the Muslims if it becomes necessary.

Reply->

Charles S • Jun 30, 2018 at 10:08

'Muslims are in no way responsible for the acts of a tiny minority who twist their faith.' This is so delusional.

As everyone not blinded by political correctness knows full well - it's 'their faith' that has in fact twisted them! And will continue to do so until all the actual hate and calls to violence are expunged from 'their faith'.

If Javid is sincere then it is his duty and the duty of the 'majority' to STOP this so-called twisting of their faith by whatever means. Until this solution occurs then logic says ALL muslims remain part of the problem.

Besides, a 'tiny minority' of a billion plus is still a hell of a lot of violent, hating, sociopathic radicals. This is in no way acceptable simply because the majority are not.

By the way, another excellent article by A.Z.M.

Reply->

Harvey Epstein • Jun 30, 2018 at 10:03

Interesting article, but both the author and his subject avoid speaking about the real issue: until all of Islam is transformed and the hate expressed by so many of the fundamentals contained in it are expunged, this problem will always play a significant role in the daily lives of so many of its faithful.

Reply->

Alan • Jun 30, 2018 at 09:47

Javid bends over backwards minimizing the Islamic terrorist threat and the Islamization of Britain. Perfect example is his part in imprisoning Tommy Robinson who simply wants to make people aware of the Islamic crimes so that steps can be taken to correct the problems and preserve British cultural values.

Reply->

william carr • Jun 30, 2018 at 09:36

What are those values that 'hold us together'? In fact a true Muslim does not accept British or French or German values. You only have to look at the surveys of Muslim showing a high % or a majority believe Sharia is superior to democracy, yet they are living in societies founded on democracy. They cannot be true Muslims and accept a value system alien to their religious beliefs. This what the current buzz word 'diversity' (which replaced multiculture) means, diversity means going in different directions. Pulling apart. That is what we seen in obviously in, Germany and other migrant affected nation; and then we have the politicians of the EU who do not believe in the nation state any way and work for its abolition.

Reply->

Stefan william carr • Jun 30, 2018 at 12:48

The EU politicians believe in Globalization.

Reply->

Terry Gain • Jun 30, 2018 at 08:18

The obstacles to deradicalization cannot be overcome without convincing the jihadists to leave Islam. Firstly, the Jihad verses cannot simply be written out of the Koran. Secondly, Muhammad, the role model, was not only a terrorist, he bragged about being successful through terror, Bukhari 4, 52:220.

The money wasted on deradicalization would be better spent fixing teeth.

Reply->

jeb • Jun 30, 2018 at 08:12

The Church of England has a bigger problem with separation of church and state which alone should disqualify some Imams and Mosques from receiving huge inputs of oil money to insure that assimilation into western culture does not occur. But even in the USA where separation of church and state is a salient point made over and again in sexual political contexts, school payer and issues relative to freedom of expression and speech, we seem to have constipated attitudes about the propriety of an ever creeping Mosque and state and the liberal radical pro-Islamist cabal in the DNC is advocate, anti-Christian pro-Islam as if they are demarcations between capitalism and socialism.

Reply->

Dave Mcloughlin • Jun 30, 2018 at 07:51

Even this commentary is P.C.! From the surveys taken among "moderate" Moslems after major "events" , significant %s identify with, sympathise with, admire or support the perpetrators. The West needs to do a cost benefit analysis of Moslem immigration. Lets do some "racist" arithmetic. U.K. 5% Moslem, 3% Pakistani/Bengladeshi. 90% of convicted "grooming" gang pedophile rapist have P/B names. Virtually all victims are non Moslem. So the 95% non Moslem majority account for 10% of convictions.So far, I predict it will get worse, a Moslem is more than 170 times more likely to be behind bars for a sick crime than an infidel. 30% of all babies with birth defects are of P/B origin, that's what happens when cousins in- breed. 20% of prisoners in high security prisons are guess what? 20,000 to 30,000 Moslems are considered security risks (potential terrorists). I wonder how much surveillance and policing costs. Only 20% adult Moslems are employed because of "racism". Mohammedism is not a race. The late Ayatollah Kohmeini's "Little Green Book" should be compulsive reading for all high school kids. I found it's missives: on sex with children and animals, attitude to; western democracy, women, infidels and homosexuals very enlightening -even though thoroughly repulsive. The borders need to be belatedly closed to external threats.

Reply->

Jeff Page • Jun 30, 2018 at 07:37

The general public in Britain are fully aware that the "de-radicalisation" programmes don't work, but it gives the government a warm fuzzy feeling in their stomachs to think that they are doing something, no matter how pitiful it is. Sajid Javid is not a practising Muslim unlike the Mayor of Londonistan, who is a fully fledged untrustworthy Muslim if ever there were one!

Like many in European countries, the British people are getting fed up with having to spend more on resources to combat terrorism. More money from taxpayers is being spent to protect crowds at public gatherings and the various events that we all used to take for granted were safe to attend. The government's approach has been weak towards the Islamists within our prisons and towards hate preaching going on in Mosques, Faith Schools, and Madrasses. They have become so trusting and naive that they actually consider that Muslims will become productive members of society. Some will of course, but the vast majority won't. If in the future, more control is given to Muslims, then the truth will come out. By then it will be far too late to reverse the situation. Our dozy, demented PM is not only caving into the EU, she is also pandering to Muslims chasing their support through votes. Little does she realise that when the Islamic flag flies over Downing Street, her head will also be displayed on a spike in parliament square.

Reply->

David Ashton Jeff Page • Jun 30, 2018 at 10:30

@ Jeff Page

Your last sentence is not much consolation.

See what happens if mosques are asked to remove the Crescent on their minarets because it symbolizes the defeat of Christians by Ottoman Muslims, and is therefore offensive to the hapless natives of Occupied England.

Reply->

Adrianne Smyth Jeff Page • Jun 30, 2018 at 13:37

The de-radicalisation programme is not undertaken to give the Government a "warm fuzzy feeling" but to convince their voters that something is being done to deter terrorism.

By the time the public realises that this foolish system is useless it will be too late. The proliferation of mosques and madrassas is one of the most insidious developments in the destruction of the English way of life. However, judging from the hostile reception given to Lord Pearson in the House of Lords, when he asked a very reasonable question as to whether the Government might start monitoring the hate speech from Imams currently being disseminated in mosques and madrassas, nothing much will happen to upset the Muslims' facile take over of our once great and well run country.As for our "dozy demented PM" this clip speaks for itself. With her at the helm we are doomed. At least Trump has cottoned on to her foolishness.

The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute.
Both reserve the right not to publish replies to articles should they so choose.
Gatestone Institute is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization, Federal Tax ID #454724565.